World
Stephen Karganovic
December 2, 2022
© Photo: REUTERS/Gleb Garanich

Even The New York Times was unable to spin the recent gruesome murder of Russian prisoners at the hands of Kiev Nazi regime forces.

Even The New York Times was unable to spin the recent gruesome murder of Russian prisoners at the hands of Kiev Nazi regime forces. Unconditional honesty, of course, is not reasonably to be expected from the Establishment’s “paper of record,” in this or any other comparably tricky situation. Not that, with the abundant video and other evidence saturating the internet, there is the slightest doubt that (1) a gruesome crime in violation of the laws and customs of war was committed against unarmed and hors de combat Russian prisoners, and (2) that the perpetrators were members of armed formations subordinate to the Kiev regime thus, according to standards promulgated by the Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Hague, making the regime itself complicit in the criminal conduct in violation of international law.

To diminish the obvious gravity of the crime The Times uses weasel words to refer to it, such as “suggest” and “appear,” even unashamedly claiming that the incontrovertible visual evidence may have resulted in some uncertainty and has “ignited a debate” of sorts. It carefully calibrates its slippery rhetoric to soften the moral impact of the disclosure because the editors know that the optics of what happened (never mind the morality, about which they do not care) are devastating to the reputation of the collective West’s Ukrainian proxies. In the end, however, the Times concedes that “the videos, whose credibility we have established, represent a rare opportunity to see some of the horrific situations of the war, but they do not show why Russian soldiers were killed.” As if identifying the reason for the murders would make any difference given the absence of doubt that unarmed men posing no danger to their captives were summarily executed on camera, in contravention of Geneva conventions.

To be sure, a coy admission is not the same as indignant and sincere condemnation, of which there was none anywhere in the West, nor is it the same as public resolve to bring perpetrators (and that means many more than just the direct executioners seen in the video) to justice as well as to sever the abundant support they have been receiving to enable them to implement the entire range of their criminal designs. The obvious parallel between the conduct of collective West’s criminal minions in the Ukraine and crimes imputed to the Serbs during the war in Bosnia has yet to be explicitly noticed and its manifest implications await to be drawn by the moral authorities of the self-proclaimed “international community.” That is because the condemnatory shrieks which are instantly heard at the slightest infraction of unlicensed actors are muted or entirely missing when outrages are committed by the collective West’s licensed criminal protégés.

At roughly the same time that Russian prisoners of war were being summarily murdered and citizens of Kherson who made the mistake of staying behind were publicly pilloried and tortured in the fiendish style that is the trademark of the Ukronazis, the shameless European parliament was adopting a sanctimonious resolution citing Russia as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” The resolution’s gist is the demand for a special international court to be established to punish what it calls Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. But the list of virtue signalling demands goes considerably further than that and includes calling on EU member states to “close and ban Russian state-affiliated institutions, such as the Russian Centres for Science and Culture and Russian diaspora organisations and associations.”

Will the Russian Orthodox Church make the EU’s black list? It surely ought to, given the recently floated plan to ban Patriarch Kirill from European territory for his politically incorrect stance on the Special Military Operation.

Presumably, if this resolution is implemented the only “Russian” institutions allowed to remain open in the “open societies” of the West will be those run by bought and paid for “dissidents” well versed in the Russophobic script and eager to slavishly follow it.

As the Ukronazi regime in Ukraine commits more outrages which show unequivocally its genuine, subhuman nature, paradoxically its alliance with the moribund Western societies which sustain it appears increasingly natural and normal. The fact is that they are kindred spirits working on the realisation of practically identical overarching objectives. The neo-Nazi world contemplated by the Azov battalion is not substantially distinguishable from the WEF world which Klaus Schwab (incidentally, himself a descendant of a high level supporter of the Hitler regime) and his loathsome acolyte Harari (here) are assiduously plotting to impose.

It is important to bear in mind that these individuals, separated by ideological differences that are merely cosmetic, stand together unfailingly on all issues pertaining to the accomplishment of their common practical objectives. They have no remorse, empathy, or even a barely detectable trace of common humanity. They have shed completely and defiantly the moral heritage that used to define Europe and Western Civilisation. As well before the onset of the current moral collapse Dostoevsky accurately foresaw, cannibalism is now all that is left, or soon will be.

The murder in cold blood of Russian prisoners bespeaks of their and their Ukronazi underlings’ contempt for human life and dignity. Their parliament’s slimy resolution seeking to expel from their midst the only remaining culture, and spiritual heritage that shaped it, which still offers to the corpse the hope of resurrection bespeaks of their terminal self-destructiveness and obstinate apostasy.

What passes for Western civilisation today is in dire straits and if he were to speak on that subject now Gandhi would undoubtedly amend his prior assessment. He would say that it is not even a good idea any more.

It is useless to stigmatise and bewail the wickedness, rank hypocrisy and impotent malice of a waning world which no longer resembles a coherent civilisation. Just leave it be in its lostness and detach yourself from it.

Srebrenica in the Ukraine

Even The New York Times was unable to spin the recent gruesome murder of Russian prisoners at the hands of Kiev Nazi regime forces.

Even The New York Times was unable to spin the recent gruesome murder of Russian prisoners at the hands of Kiev Nazi regime forces. Unconditional honesty, of course, is not reasonably to be expected from the Establishment’s “paper of record,” in this or any other comparably tricky situation. Not that, with the abundant video and other evidence saturating the internet, there is the slightest doubt that (1) a gruesome crime in violation of the laws and customs of war was committed against unarmed and hors de combat Russian prisoners, and (2) that the perpetrators were members of armed formations subordinate to the Kiev regime thus, according to standards promulgated by the Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Hague, making the regime itself complicit in the criminal conduct in violation of international law.

To diminish the obvious gravity of the crime The Times uses weasel words to refer to it, such as “suggest” and “appear,” even unashamedly claiming that the incontrovertible visual evidence may have resulted in some uncertainty and has “ignited a debate” of sorts. It carefully calibrates its slippery rhetoric to soften the moral impact of the disclosure because the editors know that the optics of what happened (never mind the morality, about which they do not care) are devastating to the reputation of the collective West’s Ukrainian proxies. In the end, however, the Times concedes that “the videos, whose credibility we have established, represent a rare opportunity to see some of the horrific situations of the war, but they do not show why Russian soldiers were killed.” As if identifying the reason for the murders would make any difference given the absence of doubt that unarmed men posing no danger to their captives were summarily executed on camera, in contravention of Geneva conventions.

To be sure, a coy admission is not the same as indignant and sincere condemnation, of which there was none anywhere in the West, nor is it the same as public resolve to bring perpetrators (and that means many more than just the direct executioners seen in the video) to justice as well as to sever the abundant support they have been receiving to enable them to implement the entire range of their criminal designs. The obvious parallel between the conduct of collective West’s criminal minions in the Ukraine and crimes imputed to the Serbs during the war in Bosnia has yet to be explicitly noticed and its manifest implications await to be drawn by the moral authorities of the self-proclaimed “international community.” That is because the condemnatory shrieks which are instantly heard at the slightest infraction of unlicensed actors are muted or entirely missing when outrages are committed by the collective West’s licensed criminal protégés.

At roughly the same time that Russian prisoners of war were being summarily murdered and citizens of Kherson who made the mistake of staying behind were publicly pilloried and tortured in the fiendish style that is the trademark of the Ukronazis, the shameless European parliament was adopting a sanctimonious resolution citing Russia as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” The resolution’s gist is the demand for a special international court to be established to punish what it calls Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. But the list of virtue signalling demands goes considerably further than that and includes calling on EU member states to “close and ban Russian state-affiliated institutions, such as the Russian Centres for Science and Culture and Russian diaspora organisations and associations.”

Will the Russian Orthodox Church make the EU’s black list? It surely ought to, given the recently floated plan to ban Patriarch Kirill from European territory for his politically incorrect stance on the Special Military Operation.

Presumably, if this resolution is implemented the only “Russian” institutions allowed to remain open in the “open societies” of the West will be those run by bought and paid for “dissidents” well versed in the Russophobic script and eager to slavishly follow it.

As the Ukronazi regime in Ukraine commits more outrages which show unequivocally its genuine, subhuman nature, paradoxically its alliance with the moribund Western societies which sustain it appears increasingly natural and normal. The fact is that they are kindred spirits working on the realisation of practically identical overarching objectives. The neo-Nazi world contemplated by the Azov battalion is not substantially distinguishable from the WEF world which Klaus Schwab (incidentally, himself a descendant of a high level supporter of the Hitler regime) and his loathsome acolyte Harari (here) are assiduously plotting to impose.

It is important to bear in mind that these individuals, separated by ideological differences that are merely cosmetic, stand together unfailingly on all issues pertaining to the accomplishment of their common practical objectives. They have no remorse, empathy, or even a barely detectable trace of common humanity. They have shed completely and defiantly the moral heritage that used to define Europe and Western Civilisation. As well before the onset of the current moral collapse Dostoevsky accurately foresaw, cannibalism is now all that is left, or soon will be.

The murder in cold blood of Russian prisoners bespeaks of their and their Ukronazi underlings’ contempt for human life and dignity. Their parliament’s slimy resolution seeking to expel from their midst the only remaining culture, and spiritual heritage that shaped it, which still offers to the corpse the hope of resurrection bespeaks of their terminal self-destructiveness and obstinate apostasy.

What passes for Western civilisation today is in dire straits and if he were to speak on that subject now Gandhi would undoubtedly amend his prior assessment. He would say that it is not even a good idea any more.

It is useless to stigmatise and bewail the wickedness, rank hypocrisy and impotent malice of a waning world which no longer resembles a coherent civilisation. Just leave it be in its lostness and detach yourself from it.

Even The New York Times was unable to spin the recent gruesome murder of Russian prisoners at the hands of Kiev Nazi regime forces.

Even The New York Times was unable to spin the recent gruesome murder of Russian prisoners at the hands of Kiev Nazi regime forces. Unconditional honesty, of course, is not reasonably to be expected from the Establishment’s “paper of record,” in this or any other comparably tricky situation. Not that, with the abundant video and other evidence saturating the internet, there is the slightest doubt that (1) a gruesome crime in violation of the laws and customs of war was committed against unarmed and hors de combat Russian prisoners, and (2) that the perpetrators were members of armed formations subordinate to the Kiev regime thus, according to standards promulgated by the Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Hague, making the regime itself complicit in the criminal conduct in violation of international law.

To diminish the obvious gravity of the crime The Times uses weasel words to refer to it, such as “suggest” and “appear,” even unashamedly claiming that the incontrovertible visual evidence may have resulted in some uncertainty and has “ignited a debate” of sorts. It carefully calibrates its slippery rhetoric to soften the moral impact of the disclosure because the editors know that the optics of what happened (never mind the morality, about which they do not care) are devastating to the reputation of the collective West’s Ukrainian proxies. In the end, however, the Times concedes that “the videos, whose credibility we have established, represent a rare opportunity to see some of the horrific situations of the war, but they do not show why Russian soldiers were killed.” As if identifying the reason for the murders would make any difference given the absence of doubt that unarmed men posing no danger to their captives were summarily executed on camera, in contravention of Geneva conventions.

To be sure, a coy admission is not the same as indignant and sincere condemnation, of which there was none anywhere in the West, nor is it the same as public resolve to bring perpetrators (and that means many more than just the direct executioners seen in the video) to justice as well as to sever the abundant support they have been receiving to enable them to implement the entire range of their criminal designs. The obvious parallel between the conduct of collective West’s criminal minions in the Ukraine and crimes imputed to the Serbs during the war in Bosnia has yet to be explicitly noticed and its manifest implications await to be drawn by the moral authorities of the self-proclaimed “international community.” That is because the condemnatory shrieks which are instantly heard at the slightest infraction of unlicensed actors are muted or entirely missing when outrages are committed by the collective West’s licensed criminal protégés.

At roughly the same time that Russian prisoners of war were being summarily murdered and citizens of Kherson who made the mistake of staying behind were publicly pilloried and tortured in the fiendish style that is the trademark of the Ukronazis, the shameless European parliament was adopting a sanctimonious resolution citing Russia as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” The resolution’s gist is the demand for a special international court to be established to punish what it calls Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. But the list of virtue signalling demands goes considerably further than that and includes calling on EU member states to “close and ban Russian state-affiliated institutions, such as the Russian Centres for Science and Culture and Russian diaspora organisations and associations.”

Will the Russian Orthodox Church make the EU’s black list? It surely ought to, given the recently floated plan to ban Patriarch Kirill from European territory for his politically incorrect stance on the Special Military Operation.

Presumably, if this resolution is implemented the only “Russian” institutions allowed to remain open in the “open societies” of the West will be those run by bought and paid for “dissidents” well versed in the Russophobic script and eager to slavishly follow it.

As the Ukronazi regime in Ukraine commits more outrages which show unequivocally its genuine, subhuman nature, paradoxically its alliance with the moribund Western societies which sustain it appears increasingly natural and normal. The fact is that they are kindred spirits working on the realisation of practically identical overarching objectives. The neo-Nazi world contemplated by the Azov battalion is not substantially distinguishable from the WEF world which Klaus Schwab (incidentally, himself a descendant of a high level supporter of the Hitler regime) and his loathsome acolyte Harari (here) are assiduously plotting to impose.

It is important to bear in mind that these individuals, separated by ideological differences that are merely cosmetic, stand together unfailingly on all issues pertaining to the accomplishment of their common practical objectives. They have no remorse, empathy, or even a barely detectable trace of common humanity. They have shed completely and defiantly the moral heritage that used to define Europe and Western Civilisation. As well before the onset of the current moral collapse Dostoevsky accurately foresaw, cannibalism is now all that is left, or soon will be.

The murder in cold blood of Russian prisoners bespeaks of their and their Ukronazi underlings’ contempt for human life and dignity. Their parliament’s slimy resolution seeking to expel from their midst the only remaining culture, and spiritual heritage that shaped it, which still offers to the corpse the hope of resurrection bespeaks of their terminal self-destructiveness and obstinate apostasy.

What passes for Western civilisation today is in dire straits and if he were to speak on that subject now Gandhi would undoubtedly amend his prior assessment. He would say that it is not even a good idea any more.

It is useless to stigmatise and bewail the wickedness, rank hypocrisy and impotent malice of a waning world which no longer resembles a coherent civilisation. Just leave it be in its lostness and detach yourself from it.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

See also

November 21, 2022
January 4, 2023
November 7, 2022

See also

November 21, 2022
January 4, 2023
November 7, 2022
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.